what if ksp runs on the Frostbite engine.

[ouion]

Post you thoughts:D

for those who don't know what is the frostbite engine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frostbite_(game_engine):D

[Themohawkninja]

What would be the point? There aren't any interiors to discern from for the purpose of utilizing its audio manipulation (excluding the Easter Egg on Tylo), and the cost of repairing the damage to a building would be astronomical.

Not to mention the licensing fees for Squad.

Lastly, Frostbite utilizes 64-bit technology, which means it would probably lag on KSP if you didn't have a very high-end system.

[PDCWolf]

It would be a loud-explosion-tryhard-lensflare-scripted hardcore rocket action game.

Frostbite engine is the most buzzword filled engine ever, it's popular because of lies and non-existent features.

[OrbitusII]

We had a huge discussion about this on last night's KSPTV stream. There are several issues with changing game engines in the middle of development (especially version 0.24):

1. Re-writing EVERYTHING. KSP's development would take another 2+ years if Squad changed engines

2. OS Compatibility. Frostbite is only available for Windows, PlayStation and XBox variants, while KSP's community has a huge OS X and Linux population. One does not simply convert the whole world to Windows.

3. EA is the developer and owner of Frostbite. Need I say more?

4. Unity works well enough for KSP. The only major limitations are the 64-bit bugs on OS X and Windows and an older version of PhysX that only uses 2 CPU cores and a small amount of the GPU.

[PDCWolf]

4. Unity works well enough for KSP. The only major limitations are the 64-bit bugs on OS X and Windows and an older version of PhysX that only uses 2 CPU cores and a small amount of the GPU.

Major limitations include floating point calculation, CPU only physics, no axial tilt for planets, no realtime space, no realtime lighting, no complex forces, no n-body, no optimization, no good particle effects, buggy joints, etc.

Also, I think the op was making a supposition, not suggesting to change engines.

Edited February 3, 2014 by vexx32

[Motokid600]

Major limitations include floating point calculation, CPU only physics, no axial tilt for planets, no realtime space, no realtime lighting, no complex forces, no n-body, no optimization, no good particle effects, buggy joints, etc.

Also, I think the op was making a supposition, not suggesting to change engines.

..Uhm.. is the game even in beta yet?

Edited February 3, 2014 by vexx32

[leax256]

no axial tilt for planets

I thought that was squad themself not adding that feature yet.

[dlrk]

I don't know about Frostbite, but KSP badly needs a different engine. 64 bit is badly needed, as is an end to the phrase "unity limitation"

[AlamoVampire]

pointless speculation is pointless.

per the Planned Features wiki

Not happening

The following features won't be in the official game (although may be found in mods):

Steam achievements[citation needed]

Autopilot Systems[citation needed]

Weapons or military features[citation needed]

Alien civilizations[citation needed]

Terraforming[citation needed]

Realistically sized celestial bodies [13]

Conversion to a different game engine.[citation needed]

[SkyHook]

I think weather would add a great immersive and strategic element to add, and in no engine would it look better! I think the FrostBite engine would improve the effects of KSP, but it would also melt graphics cards AND Cpus.

[Commissar]

frostbite engine is not really suited for KSP. it's meant for FPS games, which are very graphics intensive, but not so much physics intensive. the biggest bottlenecks in KSP are physics calculation and memory capacity for textures. sure, moving to 64-bit would increase how much memory ksp can use, but that is exactly what we need. the argument that "oh, 32-bit systems won't run it then" is a pretty bad one, in my opinion. 99% of 32-bit systems are so old and underpowered, i'd be surprised if they could even run KSP acceptably.

the big feature of Frostbit is the Mantle API, giving low-level hardware access, especially with the GPU. not very useful for KSP. gpus are not really suited for the physics calc used in kerbal.

[Levelord]

Post you thoughts:D

for those who don't know what is the frostbite engine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frostbite_(game_engine):D

Of all the engines you could have suggested, why the Frostbite engine? It has such a terrible reputation that the only reason why I think someone would consider it would be because they are avid Battlefield 3-4 fans.

[Kerbart]

Major limitations include floating point calculation, CPU only physics, no axial tilt for planets, no realtime space, no realtime lighting, no complex forces, no n-body, no optimization, no good particle effects, buggy joints, etc.

n-body would deteriorate game play. Why would they want to do that?

[Tripzter]

Needs Mantle.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/14/oxide-star-swarm-real-time-strategy-mantle-demo/

[SyberSmoke]

Just say no to Dice, EA, and Frostbite. IF anything I would be more of an advocate for CryEngine like what Star Citizen is using. BUT that would only be if Squad got a HUGE infusion of cash and a majority of the player base were into that idea. Unity is...not the best choice for this, but it works for what it is. So may be if they do a KSP 2...they can go to something more oomphy then Unity.

[Levelord]

Needs Mantle.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/14/oxide-star-swarm-real-time-strategy-mantle-demo/

Holy crap, that's a deeply impressive engine. I like how they split up the processing power between the GPU and CPU to allow for more physics calculations and increasing framerate. KSP could actually take advantage of this!

[PetahSchwetah]

[deleted]

Edited January 28, 2022 by PetahSchwetah

[Mobjack]

If KSP switches game engines, then we will be complaining about that game engine's limitations instead.

[boxman]

I think weather would add a great immersive and strategic element to add, and in no engine would it look better! I think the FrostBite engine would improve the effects of KSP, but it would also melt graphics cards AND Cpus.

I am sure they could add some good looking wether in current engine as well.. Even mid end GPU's are these days mostly unused in KSP that could be used for fancy things like weather/clouds.

[boxman]

Did I hear right? EA is not the developer of Frostbite Engine, it's DICE, here in Sweden. EA own DICE though...

Which makes them EA. They have proven again and again that they like to take full control of every company they buy out. Just look at what happened to companies like maxis and their latest simcity game.

[Clockwork_werewolf]

1. Re-writing EVERYTHING. KSP's development would take another 2+ years if Squad changed engines

2. OS Compatibility. Frostbite is only available for Windows, PlayStation and XBox variants, while KSP's community has a huge OS X and Linux population. One does not simply convert the whole world to Windows.

3. EA is the developer and owner of Frostbite. Need I say more?

These reasons right here are why not to move.

It's also worth noting that point one stands no matter which game engine you change to. Even if you take out all the time to plan the game, all the time spent on balancing items and all the time spent making the game assets you are still left with about a year of programming the game. This doesn't even include the time to learn the new programing rules and the bug fixes for different problems. Oh and I don't want to give any money to EA if I can help it, let alone 50% of the games cost.

Things I care about game engine wise: Part numbers, multi-core use, floating point calcs. Even then I'm only certain that multi-core use is directly related to the game engine.

[Levelord]

These reasons right here are why not to move.

It's also worth noting that point one stands no matter which game engine you change to. Even if you take out all the time to plan the game, all the time spent on balancing items and all the time spent making the game assets you are still left with about a year of programming the game. This doesn't even include the time to learn the new programing rules and the bug fixes for different problems. Oh and I don't want to give any money to EA if I can help it, let alone 50% of the games cost.

Things I care about game engine wise: Part numbers, multi-core use, floating point calcs. Even then I'm only certain that multi-core use is directly related to the game engine.

I can see KSP under EA now!

* Always online DRM, because your PCs can't handle the processing power, so EA servers will do it for you! (SimCity lie)

* Preorder KSP and get Jebediah Kerman as part of your Kerbal roster!

* Jet engine and plane parts DLC!

* Unlock Jool and its moons through microtransactions!

* Future DLC will NOT be free!

* KSP will now not be moddable, like all other EA games. We can't risk piracy now can we?

[Corw]

Major limitations include floating point calculation, CPU only physics, no axial tilt for planets, no realtime space, no realtime lighting, no complex forces, no n-body, no optimization, no good particle effects, buggy joints, etc.

Also, I think the op was making a supposition, not suggesting to change engines.

You have mixed something badly here.

- floating point calculation - changing engine would not change this

- CPU only physics - this is Unity limitation, hopefully will be changed one day

- no axial tilt for planets - HarvesteR's choice not to overcompilcate things, gameplay over realism

- no complex forces - care to elaborate? Or is it tied to the next one?

- no n-body - HarvesteR's choice not to overcompilcate things, gameplay over realism, also tehnical dificulties no matter which engine you pick

- no optimization - how is tis tied to an engine?

- no good particle effects - don't know enough to comment this

- buggy joints - not sure if this is engine problem or if it can be fixed

[Tripzter]

- buggy joints - not sure if this is engine problem or if it can be fixed

It's a simple "strength" formula that's causing a lot of the joint connections with KSP, IMO if they make the joints stronger and remove some of the "mass" of the wobble calculations it will get rid of a lot of the bugs. It's not a problem with the engine. The engine will do what you tell it to do. The problem is with the calculations.

Ever seen the real space ship take off? You dont see the joints wobble apart like they are held together via rubber bands. Either the metal crumples and fails or it doesnt. You don't see any "staples" holding them together like we have to do with the struts because apparently having 3/4" bolts 4" apart all around are not as strong as having 6 struts glued to the outside. Hell the joints on most crafts are stronger than the body just because of the extra metal in the area.

Ever seen an airplane that got torn because of a storm? You dont see the hole at the joint, you see it in the middle of the body as thats the weakest area.

[Dedjal]

The developers will continue to add more stuff to ksp, until it reaches the point that any form of endgame is out of the question because of the lag.

Just look at SoaSE.

Look at it gooood.

That is what ksp will experience.